BABJI Y Vs. T KHADGADERA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts in order to dispose of this Writ Appeal run thus: The 1st respondent (hereinafter called as "the petitioner") applied for grant of a pacca stage carriage permit as far back as in 1991. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority which was allowed and permit was granted vide order dated 9-4-1991. The Secretary, R.T.A., vide memo dt. 22-4-1991 directed the petitioner to produce the records of the vehicle to issue the permit under Rule 192 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as "the Rules"). It will be expedient to notice at this stage Rule 192 in verbatim which runs thus:

(2.) No records were produced within the time stipulated under Rule 192 of the Rules till 22-8-1991. No application for extension of time was made within the time stipulated. The application for issuance of permit was rejected on 22-4-1992 by the Secretary, R.T.A., inter alia holding that Rule 192 of the Rules has been violated as the period of limitation for issuance of permit had expired. An application for extension of time to produce the record was made to the State Transport Appellate Authority and the same was dismissed. The order declining extension of time by the State Transport Appellate Authority was challenged in a Writ Petition. By an interim order dated 9-10-1992 the respondent-authority was directed to grant the permit. Thus in ground reality the petitioner is running the vehicle under validly granted and issued permit till date. At this stage it may be noticed that the appellant was impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition under the orders of the Court - being an existing permanent permit holder with respect to part of the route. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the order dated 22-4-1992 and directed the respondent-authority to issue the permit vide order dated 6-7-1999 which is impugned in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) The sole grievance made by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this Writ Appeal is that the learned single Judge could not have set aside the finding of the Secretary, R.T.A.; that there is no satisfactory explanation for not producing the records for issuance of permit as envisaged by Rule 192 of the Rules; no application for extension of time was made within the stipulated period of four months; there are no records produced before the Court showing the sufficient cause for not producing the records within the time stipulated; the Writ Petition suffers from suppression of facts as the issuance of notice to produce the record by the Secretary, R.T.A. was neither brought to the notice of the appellate authority nor to the learned single Judge in the Writ Petition; and satisfaction with respect to extension of time is required to be of the authorities who came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory explanation for extension of time and it is a finding of fact which need not be interfered with in the Writ Petition. It is further contended that Section 72 read with Secs.80 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as provided in Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provide for the procedure for grant of permit.